MASM: A Multiple-Algorithm Service Model for Energy-Delay Optimization in Edge Artificial Intelligence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Edge computing has emerged as a promising technique because of its advantages in providing low-latency computation offloading services for resource-limited mobile user devices and Internet of Things applications. Computationally intensive artificial intelligence (AI) tasks are well suited to be offloaded to the Cloudlet server, but there is a lack of energy-delay optimization models specifically designed for this edge AI scenario. In this paper, we propose a multiple algorithm service model (MASM) that provides heterogeneous algorithms with different computation complexities and required data sizes to fulfill the same task, and develop an optimization model that aims at reducing the energy and delay cost by optimizing the workload assignment weights and computing capacities of virtual machines, at the same time guaranteeing the quality of the results (QoRs). We propose a tide ebb algorithm to solve the MASM optimization model, and we prove its Parato optimality. Numerical results obtained demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed method, and prove that the energy and delay costs can be significantly reduced by sacrificing the QoR of the offloaded AI tasks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".